Trump says likely to support ending federal ban on marijuana

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's not really what's jhnn's saying. The political motivation to sign off on this may be reaching a tipping point, but it will be reluctantly for many politicians who gain favor from one or more of the opponents of MJ legalization. There's billions of dollars at stake.

Perhaps you don't understand the process I'm referring to. There is the CSA, which is the federal law concerning the process of rescheduling which is derived from treaty in which we are a signatory. The process I referred to is from that law again derived from treaty. The Executive branch is granted the explicit authority to make changes in scheduling. Congress has to do nothing and if it wishes to interfere it can withdraw from the treaty and rewrite the law.

Since it is unlike that Congress will take any action for or against MJ, it makes sense to eliminate the basis for tens of thousands of years of sentencing by rescheduling. This really isn't rocket science- it's all spelled out. All it takes is a leader serves the citizens of the nation. We don't grow those anymore I suppose.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He knows what I'm saying. He's just running cover for the GOP.

"Don't look at Congress! Look at these other people!"

You ran cover for the Iraq War inaction and for countless years of people imprisoned that didn't have to happen. The GOP and yours is responsible for what it does and does not do. You merely cover for harm done because the lives of millions don't matter.

There is a means that is legal that you lie about, "safe and effective" was a most recent one. Then the Deep State Conspiracy.

Nonsense.

Congress should do something and they likely wont. The Executive Branch is no better than the last in this regard, but perhaps you fear that somehow Trump will forget himself and task someone with the ability to ask questions about options and this happen. I suspect that terrifies you as evidenced with "running cover for the GOP". Maybe you are a Russian plant here working for Putin to spread disinformation. Well you do.

Doesn't matter, I've explained what can be done but in my "running cover" I don't think anything will happen and you'll scream with rage if it does.

 

[Jhhnn]

Like I said- HR is running political cover for the GOP. With Gish galloping, duh-version, character assassination & denial of reality, of course.

The only real hope for legalization is with Congress & that won't happen when the GOP is in charge. So we need to vote them out for that & a lot of other reasons. That's what HR is desperately trying to deflect away from. He's trying to help guys like this stay in office-

https://www.freedomleaf.com/pete-sessions-marijuana/

It's all catch-22 when it comes to the GOP & the federal bureaucracy on this subject. It takes a minimal ability at reading between the lines to see that. They want to research it to death-

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/health/dea-marijuana-schedule-l/index.html

That won't change & nobody can make them change, either. Congress can simply set all that aside & do the right thing by America. Not a chance with the GOP.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Perhaps you don't understand the process I'm referring to. There is the CSA, which is the federal law concerning the process of rescheduling which is derived from treaty in which we are a signatory. The process I referred to is from that law again derived from treaty. The Executive branch is granted the explicit authority to make changes in scheduling. Congress has to do nothing and if it wishes to interfere it can withdraw from the treaty and rewrite the law.

Since it is unlike that Congress will take any action for or against MJ, it makes sense to eliminate the basis for tens of thousands of years of sentencing by rescheduling. This really isn't rocket science- it's all spelled out. All it takes is a leader serves the citizens of the nation. We don't grow those anymore I suppose.

I'm familiar with the CSA, and the article referenced the effect the legislation will have on it.

Again, we get back to the point of Trump saying many things, yet not doing anything.

If you read the article, and compare it to what you're saying, I'm not sure simply moving down on the schedule is enough to call it eliminating the federal ban, or creates protections for people or businesses involved with mj industry.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Between the complete failure to even attempt to make good on campaign promises

Like what? Seems he’s been doing a lot of what he says he would

 

[ch33zw1z]

Like what? Seems he’s been doing a lot of what he says he would

I suggest you look again.

 

[UglyCasanova]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000


I wouldn’t really call that a complete and utter failure?

 

[ch33zw1z]

As I stated, republican playbook. In that link, there's a shitload of failures. And many of those failures are the big ones that impact a person's life on a day to day basis in this country.

"Like what?" Then post a link with a those whats

Lol...u crack me up man.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm familiar with the CSA, and the article referenced the effect the legislation will have on it.

Again, we get back to the point of Trump saying many things, yet not doing anything.

If you read the article, and compare it to what you're saying, I'm not sure simply moving down on the schedule is enough to call it eliminating the federal ban, or creates protections for people or businesses involved with mj industry.

I'd love legislation on the matter of MJ but the odds of that happening have always made that impossible due to politics. So that leaves us with the possible, rescheduling or even deletion from the controlled drug schedule. This lies within the authority of the Executive Branch. Most state schedules and penalties follow federal law BTW. If MJ was a C-5 instead of a C-1 the legal liability is still there, but not the threat of years behind bars for simple possession.

Executive action (and people who don't know the CSA well) is NOT an Executive Order, something only of the President, but a process which PERMITS by Congressional authority to make changes and actually such changes happen all the time, mostly through the process the DEA oversees, but the process I'm referring to is not to petition them, this occurs at a higher level.

Anyway, the process requires a report be made according to the current state of the scientific art (the work is already in the literature, it does not have to be redone), the HHS determines the appropriate schedule, and then it happens.

All the while Congress can implement MJ legislation and in a decade or two they might do something. It could happen sooner, but it hasn't happened this century so far.

Lowering potential legal liability would seem like a dead simple approach but evidently, some would rather stand against it and more millions of years collectively served in prison happen.

Nope, I don't like that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

format

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Like I said- HR is running political cover for the GOP. With Gish galloping, duh-version, character assassination & denial of reality, of course.

The only real hope for legalization is with Congress & that won't happen when the GOP is in charge. So we need to vote them out for that & a lot of other reasons. That's what HR is desperately trying to deflect away from. He's trying to help guys like this stay in office-

https://www.freedomleaf.com/pete-sessions-marijuana/

It's all catch-22 when it comes to the GOP & the federal bureaucracy on this subject. It takes a minimal ability at reading between the lines to see that. They want to research it to death-

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/health/dea-marijuana-schedule-l/index.html

That won't change & nobody can make them change, either. Congress can simply set all that aside & do the right thing by America. Not a chance with the GOP.

I gave you a means and you would rather invent excuses and put more people in jail. The process is in law and Congressional approval is not required, an advantage in the short term. Cover for Republicans? Trump has this same option, it didn't disappear. Republicans can vote for MJ legislation but I believe I said they won't. Pretty poor "covering" especially as you brought Obama into this, not I.

Now trickster you've tried to convince people with half-truths here. There are two means by which MJ can be rescheduled, and one is exclusive to the executive level. You picked the one I hadn't and ran with it. Whether this is willful ignorance on your part or intentional deception doesn't matter. You do these things.

For those who wish to know the truth of the matter, there is a process of petitioning the DEA and it always ends up like the second link because the DEA operates on its on this way, but apparently, you are supposed to believe this proves that nothing can be done. That would be a lie.

There is also another method for rescheduling, and executive not legislative prerogative in this instance.

Three individuals are involved in this process, or possibly two, and this is how Hillary could have rescheduled things. You probably were supposed to forget about that, but the cat's out of the bag now.

The AG can request the Sec. of HHS to look into the current medical and scientific art regarding cannabis. When (not if because it's law) all the information is gathered the Secretary will determine if a scheduling change is required and what that ought to be. That recommendation "shall" be binding on the AG who "will" the necessary changes. As the Chief Executive, the President can start the ball rolling. The process with today's players would be that Trump asks the AG or the Sec of HHS to do this. I'm not sure if the AG can be forced to or not, but he could be fired and replaced if he didn't- remember this is outside of Russian and other criminal investigations, this is the process alone. But if for whatever reason Trump didn't want to bother with Sessions he can give the Sec of HHS who will follow the President's direction or likely find a new job because that's how things work. HHS examines materials, MJ is rescheduled and legal liability lessened.

Far from the best solution, but it's mitigation in the interim. Please notice folks that I didn't mention the DEA. That's because the DEA has no say in any of this. It is us peons who have only one method and that is to go to them, and if this were the only method available then the person I quoted would be right, but as I say the President wouldn't petition the DEA, he'd have cabinet-level people involved, not their subordinates. There is no "safe and effective" in the CSA, just "recognized medical use" and that is epilepsy without doubt.

The laws regarding safe and effective are the responsibility of the FDA, and here is something about that.

The Food and Drugs Act of 1906 was the first of more than 200 laws that constitute one of the world's most comprehensive and effective networks of public health and consumer protections. Here are a few of the congressional milestones:

• The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was passed after a legally marketed toxic elixir killed 107 people, including many children. The FD&C Act completely overhauled the public health system. Among other provisions, the law authorized the FDA to demand evidence of safety for new drugs, issue standards for food, and conduct factory inspections.
• The Kefauver-Harris Amendments of 1962, which were inspired by the thalidomide tragedy in Europe (and the FDA's vigilance that prevented the drug's marketing in the United States), strengthened the rules for drug safety and required manufacturers to prove their drugs' effectiveness.
• The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 followed a U.S. Senate finding that faulty medical devices had caused 10,000 injuries, including 731 deaths. The law applied safety and effectiveness safeguards to new devices.

Note no mention of controlled substances there.

Undoubtedly this will be seen as providing cover by revealing truth, but that would not be our problem or concern as much as the facts are themselves.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'd love legislation on the matter of MJ but the odds of that happening have always made that impossible due to politics. So that leaves us with the possible, rescheduling or even deletion from the controlled drug schedule. This lies within the authority of the Executive Branch. Most state schedules and penalties follow federal law BTW. If MJ was a C-5 instead of a C-1 the legal liability is still there, but not the threat of years behind bars for simple possession.

Executive action (and people who don't know the CSA well) is NOT an Executive Order, something only of the President, but a process which PERMITS by Congressional authority to make changes and actually such changes happen all the time, mostly through the process the DEA oversees, but the process I'm referring to is not to petition them, this occurs at a higher level.

Anyway, the process requires a report be made according to the current state of the scientific art (the work is already in the literature, it does not have to be redone), the HHS determines the appropriate schedule, and then it happens.

All the while Congress can implement MJ legislation and in a decade or two they might do something. It could happen sooner, but it hasn't happened this century so far.

Lowering potential legal liability would seem like a dead simple approach but evidently, some would rather stand against it and more millions of years collectively served in prison happen.

Nope, I don't like that.

Ok, so we're stuck with.

1. Rescheduling via executive branch, which you are admitting won't provide legal protections for entities involved in the MJ industry, which is really where this topic is needed to go.

These entities cannot be involved with financial institutions because of the federal prohibition creating a criminal liability. As a MMJ practioner, I'm sure you're aware of the predicament.

Not only are the organizations taxed, but they are very limited in some aspects of their operating procedures. All the fun of a taxed organization, none of the benefits.

2. Legislation through Congress. This will enable the wholly needed solution to effectively end the ferderal prohibition of MJ and allow a legal MJ industry. Obviously, the implications will include billions in lost revenue to quite a few other industries.

This is where you and Jhnn are digressing, essentially arguing this in a reciprocating fashion, he's arguing for option 2, and youre replying using option 1.

I do appreciate the insight you have, so thanks.

I live in MA, we voted to decriminalize almost a decade ago. Simple possession won't yield years behind bars for MJ.

 

[fskimospy]

Like what? Seems he’s been doing a lot of what he says he would

Uhmmm, no he hasn’t.

Remember better and cheaper health care for everyone?

Remember not touching social security, Medicare, or Medicaid?

Remember tax reform that was going to cost rich people money?

Remember Medicare negotiating for drug prices?

Remember his massive infrastructure plan?

If you look at the promises he’s kept they mostly have to do with xenophobia, the culture war, and his dumb trade war. The things that actually matter to people like money in their pocket, health care, and functioning infrastructure? He’s done nothing or made the situation actively worse.

Contrary to popular opinion politicians usually attempt to keep their promises. Trump is notable that for his big promises he never even tried. I guess it says a lot as to the propaganda machine that you’re still trying to claim otherwise.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ok, so we're stuck with.

1. Rescheduling via executive branch, which you are admitting won't provide legal protections for entities involved in the MJ industry, which is really where this topic is needed to go.

These entities cannot be involved with financial institutions because of the federal prohibition creating a criminal liability. As a MMJ practioner, I'm sure you're aware of the predicament.

Not only are the organizations taxed, but they are very limited in some aspects of their operating procedures. All the fun of a taxed organization, none of the benefits.

2. Legislation through Congress. This will enable the wholly needed solution to effectively end the ferderal prohibition of MJ and allow a legal MJ industry. Obviously, the implications will include billions in lost revenue to quite a few other industries.

This is where you and Jhnn are digressing, essentially arguing this in a reciprocating fashion, he's arguing for option 2, and your replying using option 1.

I do appreciate the insight you have, so thanks.

I'm actually arguing for both.

Here's the thing, the easiest path involves the least resistance. Assuming that some improvement in reducing criminal time alone is sufficient for action (this would be a major consideration from my perspective) then we have to look at the political and legal "thermodynamics" presented to us.

The most important thing here is that these two paths are not mutually exclusive by any means and they need not be. I completely agree with the legal ramifications that extend beyond using MJ without dire legal consequences. You are absolutely correct in your concerns which needs to be addressed.

My thrust is to reduce and eventually remove unwarranted punishments and financial consequences of cannabis.

In the two scenarios you properly describe there is the undisputed authority of the Executive to reschedule. It is an inferior solution to the second, explicit and well crafted law created by Congress.

So why not just cut the chase and go with legislation? Because as someone has said don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good. We can all benefit from the limited advantages of rescheduling because it has the shortest and least disruptable path. Congress has no say. There is no "deep state" involvement. It requires that people do their job and IF the Executive is sincere in wishing to reduce the enormity of the status quo then this can be had.

But again this isn't what I'm arguing for as a solution, but as an interim effort while the "perfect", legislation well crafted, is pursued. My "opponent" as he seems to present himself, has pointed out the enormous effort against outright legalization, which means it will be a long time coming. Even Democrats does not assure legalization will happen. It depends on the predisposition to the elected as a whole and that has not been favorable. Certainly public pressure can change that, but in 2, 5, 15 years? That's unknowable.

Sometimes life, most times really, isn't a question of whether to go straight to a win or not, but a series of steps to obtain a goal. Hopefully that makes my position clearer. As to why I am a GOP supporter because of that? That's not my problem nor the reality as demonstrated by my statements.

 

[werepossum]

Throwing people in prison to save them from themselves was never a small government conservative position in the first place.

This. Oh, so very much this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This. Oh, so very much this.

I think small government types are as real as Kim's unicorn and as wanted by Reps as much as Bernie by the DNC.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm actually arguing for both.

Here's the thing, the easiest path involves the least resistance. Assuming that some improvement in reducing criminal time alone is sufficient for action (this would be a major consideration from my perspective) then we have to look at the political and legal "thermodynamics" presented to us.

The most important thing here is that these two paths are not mutually exclusive by any means and they need not be. I completely agree with the legal ramifications that extend beyond using MJ without dire legal consequences. You are absolutely correct in your concerns which needs to be addressed.

My thrust is to reduce and eventually remove unwarranted punishments and financial consequences of cannabis.

In the two scenarios you properly describe there is the undisputed authority of the Executive to reschedule. It is an inferior solution to the second, explicit and well crafted law created by Congress.

So why not just cut the chase and go with legislation? Because as someone has said don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good. We can all benefit from the limited advantages of rescheduling because it has the shortest and least disruptable path. Congress has no say. There is no "deep state" involvement. It requires that people do their job and IF the Executive is sincere in wishing to reduce the enormity of the status quo then this can be had.

But again this isn't what I'm arguing for as a solution, but as an interim effort while the "perfect", legislation well crafted, is pursued. My "opponent" as he seems to present himself, has pointed out the enormous effort against outright legalization, which means it will be a long time coming. Even Democrats does not assure legalization will happen. It depends on the predisposition to the elected as a whole and that has not been favorable. Certainly public pressure can change that, but in 2, 5, 15 years? That's unknowable.

Sometimes life, most times really, isn't a question of whether to go straight to a win or not, but a series of steps to obtain a goal. Hopefully that makes my position clearer. As to why I am a GOP supporter because of that? That's not my problem nor the reality as demonstrated by my statements.

I more or less agree, nothing to dispute. I think Obama should've made the baby step of rescheduling, and we also know that the professed obstructionists would've went bonkers over it. In the end, as unhappy as it makes me, I know why Obama didn't.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I more or less agree, nothing to dispute. I think Obama should've made the baby step of rescheduling, and we also know that the professed obstructionists would've went bonkers over it. In the end, as unhappy as it makes me, I know why Obama didn't.

I know why too, but there are hundreds of thousands of prison years that could have been avoided. It comes down to who is most important, those wronged or those in power. Those wronged lost that battle. That is a key bone of contention I had with Obama and certainly a motivation to attack on the part of others I need not mention.

Sometimes politicians have to be more than the sum of their party or personal prestige. Sometimes they need to lead and do the right thing. Yeah, scarce as Kim's unicorns these days.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I know why too, but there are hundreds of thousands of prison years that could have been avoided. It comes down to who is most important, those wronged or those in power. Those wronged lost that battle. That is a key bone of contention I had with Obama and certainly a motivation to attack on the part of others I need not mention.

Sometimes politicians have to be more than the sum of their party or personal prestige. Sometimes they need to lead and do the right thing. Yeah, scarce as Kim's unicorns these days.

Sure AF won't be getting that anytime soon.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sure AF won't be getting that anytime soon.

Careful, you have now mounted a Gish and are galloping around. Sounds like a Dr. Seuss creation.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Careful, you have now mounted a Gish and are galloping around. Sounds like a Dr. Seuss creation.

I don't know what a Gish is lol.

Get a guy like Bernie Sanders in office, and you'll see more of this social stuff change, or at least honestly and seriously approached

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't know what a Gish is lol.

Get a guy like Bernie Sanders in office, and you'll see more of this social stuff change, or at least honestly and seriously approached

BERNIE BRO! Hehe, I am usually an independent, but I registered Dem in support of Bernie, not that he had a chance in NY. The DNC has just taken steps to keep him and other out of elections with any chance to win.

People refer to me as a lib or a con, but my mind doesn't function that way. I shall announce my ideology. I'm a far left communist independent alt-right ideologue.

I figure that encompasses everything including things I'm not. Good to have a wide latitude in canned responses.

I don't know what a Gish is either, other than I believe there was a silent screen actress by that last name. Not certain though. Maybe she was famous for racing horses or something.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yep, first primary I voted in in over a decade was for Bernie. I put his name in for the main election, knowing full well HRC would win the state anyways. I would have voted for HRC if I resided in a swing state.

I'm still registered independent, but I found out I could go down to the primary vote, tell them who I was and which primary I wanted to vote in, and they said its perfectly legal.

I'm a social communist, with a focus on community, although my own community has been frustrating in the last few years.

I'm a fiscal conservative...so obviously share nothing with the current republicans or cons. I would prefer to spend money on our own citizens.

 

[shortylickens]

I am going to hold out for hope, and hope some or most of the drumpf voters woke the fuck up. I have doubts, but I have more hope.

The guy was obviously full of shit and yet 62 million people voted for him. If they are dumb enough to do it once, they are dumb enough to do it twice.

 

[Thebobo]

Trump says blablablaObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablabObstructionofJusticeblablablablab
Most of it is jibberish but if you listen close enough you can hear him putting his neck in the noose every single day...

Troll